Five reasons for Bud Selig to expand replay in baseball

October 30, 8:13 AMSports ExaminerPaula Duffy

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Sports Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Joe Girardi argues call at first base with umpire Brian Gorman. (AP)

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig has been polling people about utilizing replay for more close calls on the field.

Prior to Thursday's game 2 of the World Series he told media, according to the Associated Press that there is trepidation out there: "...- it's something that you have to be very careful about. Affecting the game on the field is not something I really want to do." He went on to say, "Life is changing and I understand that, I do like the human element and I think the human element for the last 130 years has worked pretty well."

Since the commissioner hasn't gotten around to asking for my opinion I thought I'd just provide it.  The two quotes above contain fodder for multiple columns but I'll keep it to the absolute minimum

1) Fear of affecting play on the field is ludicrous since non-action allows what is currently affecting the game to continue. The choice to change nothing doesn't leave the game unaffected. 

2) Bud Selig is 75 years old. I do not believe that all senior citizens are created equal. Some know how to keep up with changes in society, including embracing technology. Bud is clearly not one of them. Younger or more techno-friendly decision makers wouldn't think twice about this change.

3) Part of what has driven this call for replay has to do with today's fans' expectation that things will be decided correctly. Why else would there be interest in television shows, like "People's Court" that decide petty disputes between warring participants? Sports fans have grown comfortable with officials in other sports being second guessed and overturned and are ready to have baseball join the club.

4) There are only two points of view on this issue. All polling accomplishes is hearing those viewpoints phrased in a different way. A decision needs to be made and those that want no change are only made nervous by continuation of the process. Those in favor of change don't believe it needs any more time to decide. It's time to get off the fence and stalling by promising to study it further.

5) Using the age of the game and its traditions to justify maintaining the status quo doesn't cut it any longer. 130 years ago autos weren't the standard mode of travel and armies fought ground wars from trenches. And yet baseball has changed the way it presents itself hasn't it?  Why else would there be night games, electronic scoreboards and uniform shirts with players' names.

If we wanted to feel like we lived in 1900, we could always turn off the televised broadcast of the game and go to the stadium ourselves. But that would mean we could afford to go, lived close enough to get there and enjoyed what we saw. Today's audience wants baseball umpires to get it right for enjoyment Bud, not as an act of revolution. Just one woman's opinion.

For more info: Did Fox self-censor its use of the strike zone graphic? 

Twitter Buttons

<!